- From: Simon Pieters <zcorpan@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:10:16 +0200
- To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Web API public" <public-webapi@w3.org>
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:36:16 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > As for the specific issue: > >> We're not happy with implementing the HTMLDocument interface on all >> Document objects. It will affect all other types of documents and the >> naming of their members in the future, and any additions to HTMLDocument >> in the future becomes risky because it might break non-HTML documents. > > The same is true for any interface that Document objects implement, > like those in the DOM Events or DOM Traversal specifications. While > I could readily agree that implementing HTMLDocument on all Document > objects might not be a good idea, I have a hard time seeing how: > >> We'd rather have the members of HTMLDocument that are useful for all >> types >> of documents to be moved to the Document interface. This would probably >> be: > > would be any kind of improvement. You would have to explain why they > need to be on Document rather than on a DocumentWithUsefulStuff inter- > face. Clearly adding them to Document would make implementers who do > not and do not plan to implement HTMLDocument anywhere at all unhappy > (important reasons being that they are poorly designed and depend on > not particularily common features like interactivity). Indeed, I forgot to say this in my initial email. See: http://www.w3.org/mid/op.txesk51widj3kv@hp-a0a83fcd39d2 -- Simon Pieters
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 17:10:33 UTC